>>> On 17.02.17 at 07:39, <haozhong.zh...@intel.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mcaction.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mcaction.c
> @@ -88,17 +88,19 @@ mc_memerr_dhandler(struct mca_binfo *binfo,
> goto vmce_failed;
> }
>
> - if ( boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL )
> + vmce_vcpuid = global->mc_vcpuid;
> + if ( boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL &&
> + (vmce_vcpuid == -1 ||
What is this -1 matching up with? Or to say it differently, this needs a
#define used at both producing and consuming sides.
> + global->mc_domid != bank->mc_domid ||
I don't understand this check.
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/vmce.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/vmce.c
> @@ -444,14 +444,21 @@ static int vcpu_fill_mc_msrs(struct vcpu *v, uint64_t
> mcg_status,
> }
>
> int fill_vmsr_data(struct mcinfo_bank *mc_bank, struct domain *d,
> - uint64_t gstatus, bool broadcast)
> + uint64_t gstatus, int vmce_vcpuid)
> {
> struct vcpu *v = d->vcpu[0];
> + bool broadcast = (vmce_vcpuid == VMCE_INJECT_BROADCAST);
> int ret;
>
> if ( mc_bank->mc_domid == (uint16_t)~0 )
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + if ( (gstatus & MCG_STATUS_LMCE) && !broadcast )
> + v = d->vcpu[vmce_vcpuid];
While the ID looks to be coming from a trustworthy source, I'd
still prefer if there was at least an ASSERT() for it to be in range.
> + if ( broadcast )
> + gstatus &= ~MCG_STATUS_LMCE;
Please combine the two if()s:
if ( broadcast )
...
else if ( gstatus & MCG_STATUS_LMCE )
...
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
